The logistical system that grew with the area has been disrupted by the lockdown. The primary final link was probably people going to stores and restaurants to get food, which they currently aren't allowed to do.
A logical fallacy isn't a "feeling", it's a short hand for identifying a poor use of logic, you should be able to directly explain the flaw you see in the other posters reasoning.
> "The shear size of some of these provinces make the logistical challenge of food delivery almost impossibile."
This is a weak assertion without proof. You can either agree with it, dismiss it or you can question the basis for it. Real logic is entirely useless here (for many reasons), but guessing the basis is logically flawed is perfectly reasonable for humans having a conversation.
Using pedantry to shut down differing opinions isn't useful.
Why invoke logic at all if the argument isn't logic? I don't think it's pedantry to point out that the form of your first sentence is a lot more useful than "feels like a logical fallacy" as an argument (or the "sounds like a logical fallacy" that they've since edited their comment to say).
Near universal food delivery isn't part of the existing logistical system, so it's certainly not surprising that it would be difficult to start doing near universal food delivery. I guess I wasn't super focused on the size part of it.
> The logistical system that grew with the area has been disrupted by the lockdown.
Yes. That's why every other country exempted the food and health-care supply chains from the lockdown. And yes, that reduced the effectiveness of the lockdowns, to the point where they were ineffective against omicron, but were effective enough against the earlier variants (when people actually was locked down, what didn't happen often).
China's government is displaying a very communist point of view, thinking they can plan a huge economy like theirs. They claim it worked well previously on smaller cities (we wouldn't know either way), but it's the nature of central planning that it is limited in scale.
The reason it’s a logical fallacy to assume size makes a real difference is the work scales with population, but the capacity to solve problems also scales with population. That’s a a formal fallacy in that the argument doesn’t follow from the premise.
In general economies of scale make things easier as you start dealing with ever larger groups.
> the capacity to solve problems also scales with population
Missing a potential key factor is not a logical fallacy. You can be perfectly logical operating from the wrong set of underlying assumptions and be completely wrong.
I'd say that your statement sounds intuitive but is not necessarily correct. As a cell's size increases, its surface area and volume both increase, but its surface area increases by the square of the radius while the volume increases by the cube.
The problem set and the solving power both increase as population size grows, but I would say problem set almost certainly increases faster. That's why people break populations down into smaller groups to be managed (federal, state, county, city, HOA).
As technology improves we may be improving the rate at which our solution power scales with population, but I think it's likely we have a long way to go until it scales faster.
It’s not missing a factor that was an issue, but jumping from size to difficulty without justification.
“All cats are mammals therefore all cats are blue.” The conclusion being false isn’t a logical fallacy. However because the conclusion isn’t supported by the argument it is a fallacy.
It common to see this kind of fallacy for example: “Smart people learn things faster, therefore all experts are smart.” Yes, you just said two things that seem related, but that doesn’t mean the first statement implies the second.
A logical fallacy isn't a "feeling", it's a short hand for identifying a poor use of logic, you should be able to directly explain the flaw you see in the other posters reasoning.